In conversation with @kersom a question came up: How would Pulp2 bugs be
handled in the future?
With Pulp2 approaching maintenance mode I think the general idea is that
Pulp2 bugs can be filed, but unless they are added to the sprint during
triage they would be closed WONTFIX with a note
I still feel like there’s value in allowing users to create publications
without publishers too. For instance, in pulp_file we create passthrough
publications but also we generate publication metadata[0]. I could easily
see a plugin writer wanting to do something similar but without a
publisher. I
Thanks David!
Here is a new query with that addition: http://tinyurl.com/yxqyto7q
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Davis wrote:
> 8 of the issues in your query are on the current sprint. You should
> probably filter by Sprint = None.
>
> David
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian
Thank you for writing this out. The most significant issue I read in this
is that 3 of the 9 plugins are having their users take steps that aren't
adding any value in their workflow. They want to (and have an opportunity
to) take repository version content and expose it directly. They don't need
8 of the issues in your query are on the current sprint. You should
probably filter by Sprint = None.
David
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian Bouterse wrote:
> There seems to be some support to close those Pulp2 issues not in an
> external tracker. How do people feel about us taking a
There seems to be some support to close those Pulp2 issues not in an
external tracker. How do people feel about us taking a mass-close action
this Friday April 12th? Specifically on Friday I would:
1. close all issues shown in the "no external tracker related" items, this
query:
We have moved the demo out a week to next Wednesday, April 17th due to a
scheduling conflict. You still have time to submit demos.
Please also remember to help collate the next community update here:
https://etherpad.net/p/Pulp_Community_Update
Dana Walker
Software Engineer
Red Hat
I wrote up a short task[0] about our Testing infrastructure needs. I was
only able to name one additional requirement on top of what Travis already
provides. What else do we need from our CI infrastructure?
[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/4652
- Dennis
On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 11:48 AM Justin Sherrill wrote:
>
> On 4/4/19 2:35 PM, Daniel Alley wrote:
>
> Content copy between repositories is critically important to Katello
> integration and is something that we have not really addressed yet. It
> also needs to be completed before the RPM plugin
TLDR:
Auto-distribution of publications is performed implicitly instead of
explicitly.
Plugins that don't generate metadata during publish have to provide a
generic publisher.
Users have to keep track of publishers to make sure auto-distribution of
new publications works.
More background:
10 matches
Mail list logo
